I had a lot of fun with a 35mm film camera. With a sturdy tripod you could let it sit and soak up light for whole minutes, and end up with a dramatic sky that looked completely dark to the eye. Eventually that camera became unreliable and I made the switch to digital. In my experience the digital sensor collects noise during long exposures of a black sky, so I ended up getting a lot of "stars" that weren't really there. (Yours is a nice shot, though!) I had better luck with shorter timed exposures of a few seconds -- for these a remote shutter release was very helpful. I still haven't managed to get a decent shot of the moon with my equipment despite many efforts.
Have you made a complete switch to digital? I recently switched to a film camera after using a digital camera more or less since the beginning of my photography adventure (6 years). Digital to me still has it benefits. I don't have to worry about running out of film rolls, which happens frequently :)
• I estimated an exposure to cost 25¢ with film cost and processing, which was far from negligible back then, compared to practically free storage with digital. Now you don't have to have a professional budget to use the technique of taking lots of photos and picking the best. • Immediate review, to know that you at least got something. • Thousands of images on one unit of storage media instead of 24. • Film is delicate and easily ruined; SD cards are practically indestructible. • Grandma gets her copy in minutes instead of days. On two trips I shot a roll of film that didn't turn out and will always regret not capturing those images. In San Francisco, I neglected to load a roll of film at all, and didn't realize it until I had shot over 30 times without running out of film. In Buenos Aires, my camera was shooting blanks and I had no idea until I came home.Have you made a complete switch to digital?
Yes, I haven't bought a roll of film in ten years. I can barely muster nostalgia for taking chemical pictures, digital wins in every way: